>I shouldn't be surprised, but the reporting on this makes it sound way different than the actual research. Specifically, none of the research appears to have been performed on, or tested against ACTUAL SMARTPHONE implementations
That is exactly what the article says. Specifically:
The researchers did not test their approach with real phones, and other security experts said the match rate would be significantly lower in real-life conditions.
and
“To really know what the impact would be on a cellphone, you’d have to try it on the cellphone,” she said.
and
Dr. Ross acknowledged the limitations of the work.
Half of the article is about the limitations of the approach the paper used, so I fail to understand your criticism of the reporting.
While the article does say that ... eventually, the headline and the first two and a half paragraphs undermine your point.
Since most people won't actually read and digest the full article, but instead go by the headline "That Fingerprint Sensor on Your Phone Is Not as Safe as You Think" and read the first paragraph or so, none of the caveats matter much, people will walk away with the impression that this is a verified fact.
That is exactly what the article says. Specifically:
The researchers did not test their approach with real phones, and other security experts said the match rate would be significantly lower in real-life conditions.
and
“To really know what the impact would be on a cellphone, you’d have to try it on the cellphone,” she said.
and
Dr. Ross acknowledged the limitations of the work.
Half of the article is about the limitations of the approach the paper used, so I fail to understand your criticism of the reporting.